@weswes and machinist. Until this SUN. i still got school lol.and i wont be free on weekends till 18 nov. coz my holiday starts by then. Weekdays i'll be free after 6pm.. If possible meet somewhere near semb coz after meetup i still got lotsa work and projects to clear.

The Staff of YGO-Cafe would want to thanks to all the supporters for coming down to Cardmaster to join the Tournament.

The Staff Team would truly apologise on the format chosen (Double Elimination). It's a wrong choice choosing that as it need to start earlier if we to use the format.

We do hope that you all will continue to support us in our future tournament and we will try our best to improve ourselves as this is our 2nd Major Tournament. Do hope you all understand about it and sorry for any inconvience caused.

Sorry about it. We will try our best not to use this format in our future tournament and stick to everyone's familiarise format - Swiss Format, Round Robin or Single Elimination.

Here is the result of the day:-

Total Number of Teams Participated: 18 Teams

1st: Team oGs(1 Box of Duel Disk -Yusei Version - 2010) - Sam, Max & Akira2nd: Team We Are Late Cause Of MonHunt(3 Sets of Foil Pack (6 Packs Per Set with 1 Pack With Foil)) - Alex, Clarence & Bahamut

Clearly, the talking point is the change of tournament format during the tournament itself.There were 18 teams for this tournament, and double elimination was used in the beginning.

Double elimination does not plainly mean "you've 2 life and you're out after you lost twice". When did a participant (team) lose in the winner bracket will determine where they are inserted in the loser bracket. This will determine who is the opponent as well. There is a misconception whereby participants with '2 life' are randomly paired with each other, and participants with '1 life' are randomly paired with each other.

It is easy to solve this problem. A computer program can be used, or even a simple hand-drawn table can prevent such flaw.

It is not all bad. I was impressed with how it was in the beginning because only 4 teams played against each other for the 1st round. This is due to the imperfect number of participants (18), which is not the power of 2. For more information regarding the rationale behind this, click HERE.

The problem came after match 26 was played (refer to the above link), whereby there were only 2 teams left in the winner bracket. Apparently there were 9 teams left and the organiser wanted to cut it to top 8 from there. If you look at the table again, there will only be 8 teams left after match 24. Therefore, there had to be a mistake somewhere, as there shouldn't have 9 teams left.

To make the matter worse, 2 teams were randomly picked to fight for the 8th place and the loser will be 9th and got dropped out of the tournament. This scenario was theoretically impossible in an elimination.

Organiser then proposed to have a single elimination for the top 8. It is ridiculous.Obviously, it contradicted with the very purpose of having a double elimination to begin with. The 2 teams with '2 life' lost their rightful advantage of being in the winner bracket. At the same time, it is unfair to teams who lost in the later stage of the winner bracket.

After protest from some participants, it was later changed to a 'fake' double elimination. The 2 teams who were in the final of winner bracket will continue as they supposed to, and play against each other in the winner bracket. However, every team in the loser bracket played against each other in a shuffled single elimination. This solved the problem for the winner bracket but not the loser bracket. It was still unfair to teams who lost in the later stage of the winner bracket. For e.g., Team MonHunt who lost in the top 4 of the winner bracket, whereby they've already secured at least a top 6 finish, and have to play from the top 8 position again.

After the next round of matches were played, there were 4 teams left in the loser bracket, which consisted of 1 who just lost in the final of the winner bracket. This particular team technically had already secured at least a top 3 finish. However, these 4 teams then played against each other randomly, the loser from the final of winner bracket should play against the team who was left from the loser bracket instead.

You may ask how will the 3 teams (exclude the team who supposed to wait in the final of the loser bracket) be paired up? This should not have occurred in the first place, just like the 'top 9' when there should only be 8 teams left at a certain point of the tournament. In the end, the loser of the winner bracket final (Team 9 Gateways) lost and was 4th. Their 'at least a top 3 finish' was robbed from them.

The '6th-8th' teams had to play against other to earn their position in a shocking way. 2 members were picked from each team, and played in a 'triangular pairing'. Shouldn't this be a 3v3 team tournament? In a proper double elimination, all top 4 positions can be identified without playing additional matches. If there is a need, 2 teams in the 5th-6th positions will play against each other to determine their positions. Same for 7th and 8th. These matches can be played simultaneously while top 4 play their matches, which can save time. And time was the reason I was given for the change of format.

From my experience of organising Chess and Go tournaments at various levels, there are a few basic factors that will affect the time of a tournament.- Venue- Number of participants- Duration of a match- Technical problem

1. VenueIt is a something that can be controlled by the organiser. For this tournament, the organiser should know how many teams can play simultaneously in Cardmaster, because the number of chairs and tables are fixed.

2. Number of participantsThe pre-registration is a good touch from the organiser. This can help them gauge the number of paricipants.

3. Duration of a matchThis is controllable for YuGiOh, because there is a time limit for a match. The time needed to end a match after the time limit is up is relatively predictable, unlike in Chess and Go for some formats.

4. Technical problemI'm referring to computer problem, for e.g. the mantis system crashed. If a proper computer program was used in a double elimination, there would not be a 'top 9 problem'. So this is not applicable for this tournament. At least an elimination table should be drawn.

In my opinion, the main reason why there wasn't enough time was that the tournament started 1hr 35min late. It was clearly stated that it should be 2pm, but the first round was only started at 3:35pm. This is a problem for the Singapore YuGiOh community as a whole. Participants do not arrive on time, and organisers decide to give in and wait. It is unfair for those who arrive on time. This bad habit will snowball down. The late participants will think it's appropriate since the world will wait for them, and those who were on time will just follow and do the same. Then what is the purpose of stating the time for the tournament? Organisers need to be firm on this matter, and not just wait for some inconsiderate players. Soon these players will learn that the world will not wait for them and be on time next time. If an organiser wishes to be lenient to the latecomers, probably 15min is still reasonable. But 1hr35min is ridiculous.

---

It is stated clearly in the post that "- The Protector at the front of your card must be TRANSPARENT."There was still a player who did not follow this and started to change it upon request at the start of a match, and it was such tiny thing that took up time from the tournament unnecessarily.

---

Quote :

Sorry about it. We will try our best not to use this format in our future tournament and stick to everyone's familiarise format - Swiss Format, Round Robin or Single Elimination.

It is not that everyone is unfamiliar with double elimination. It is about the organisers should use a format that they are familiar with and prepare for it.

If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

Last edited by Tabris on Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:10 am; edited 2 times in total

Clearly, the talking point is the change of tournament format during the tournament itself.There were 18 teams for this tournament, and double elimination was used in the beginning.

Double elimination does not plainly mean "you've 2 life and you're out after you lost twice". When did a participant (team) lose in the winner bracket will determine where they are inserted in the loser bracket. This will determine who is the opponent as well. There is a misconception whereby participants with '2 life' are randomly paired with each other, and participants with '1 life' are randomly paired with each other.

It is easy to solve this problem. A computer program can be used, or even a simple hand-drawn table can prevent such flaw.

It is not all bad. I was impressed with how it was in the beginning because only 4 teams played against each other for the 1st round. This is due to the imperfect number of participants (18), which is not the power of 2. For more information regarding the rationale behind this, click HERE.

The problem came after match 26 was played (refer to the above link), whereby there were only 2 teams left in the winner bracket. Apparently there are 9 teams left and the organiser wanted to to cut it to top 8 from there. If you look at the table again, there will only be 8 teams left after match 24. Therefore, there had to be a mistake somewhere, as there shouldn't have 9 teams left.

To make the matter worse, 2 teams were randomly picked to fight for the 8th place and the loser will be 9th and got dropped out of the tournament. This scenario was theoretically impossible in an elimination.

Organiser then proposed to have a single elimination for the top 8. It is ridiculous.Obviously, it contradicted with the very purpose of having a double elimination to begin with. The 2 teams with '2 life' lost their rightful advantage of being in the winner bracket. At the same time, it is unfair to teams who lost in the later stage of the winner bracket.

After protest from some participants, it was later changed to a 'fake' double elimination. The 2 teams who were in the final of winner bracket will continue as they supposed to, and play against each other in the winner bracket. However, every team in the loser bracket played against each other in a shuffled single elimination. This solved the problem for the winner bracket but not the loser bracket. It was still unfair to teams who lost in the later stage of the winner bracket. For e.g., Team MonHunt who lost in the top 4 of the winner bracket, whereby they've already secured at least a top 6 finish, and have to play from the top 8 position again.

After the next round of matches were played, there were 4 teams left in the loser bracket, which consisted of 1 who just lost in the final of the winner bracket. This particular team technically had already secured at least a top 3 finish. However, these 4 teams then played against each other randomly, the loser from the final of winner bracket should play against the team who was left from the loser bracket instead.

You may ask how will the 3 teams (exclude the team who supposed to wait in the final of the loser bracket) be paired up? This should not have occurred in the first place, just like the 'top 9' when there should only be 8 teams left at a certain point of the tournament. In the end, the loser of the winner bracket final (Team 9 Gateways) lost and was 4th. Their 'at least a top 3 finish' was robbed from them.

The '6th-8th' teams had to play against other to earn their position in a shocking way. 2 members were picked from each team, and played in a 'triangular pairing'. Shouldn't this be a 3v3 team tournament? In a proper double elimination, all top 4 positions can be identified without playing additional matches. If there is a need, 2 teams in the 5th-6th positions will play against each other to determine their positions. Same for 7th and 8th. These matches can be played simultaneously while top 4 play their matches, which can save time. And time was the reason I was given for the change of format.

From my experience of organising Chess and Go tournaments at various levels, there are a few basic factors that will affect the time of a tournament.- Venue- Number of participants- Duration of a match- Technical problem

1. VenueIt is a something that can be controlled by the organiser. For this tournament, the organiser should know how many teams can play simultaneously in Cardmaster, because the number of chairs and tables are fixed.

2. Number of participantsThe pre-registration is a good touch from the organiser. This can help them gauge the number of paricipants.

3. Duration of a matchThis is controllable for YuGiOh, because there is a time limit for a match. The time needed to end a match after the time limit is up is relatively predictable, unlike in Chess and Go for some formats.

4. Technical problemI'm referring to computer problem, for e.g. the mantis system crashed. If a proper computer program was used in a double elimination, there would not be a 'top 9 problem'. So this is not applicable for this tournament. At least an elimination table should be drawn.

In my opinion, the main reason why there wasn't enough time was that the tournament started 1hr 35min late. It was clearly stated that it should be 2pm, but the first round was only started at 3:35pm. This is a problem for the Singapore YuGiOh community as a whole. Participants do not arrive on time, and organisers decide to give in and wait. It is unfair for those who arrive on time. This bad habit will snowball down. The late participants will think it's appropriate since the world will wait for them, and those who were on time will just follow and do the same. Then what is the purpose of stating the time for the tournament? Organisers need to be firm on this matter, and not just wait for some inconsiderate players. Soon these players will learn that the world will not wait for them and be on time next time. If an organiser wishes to be lenient to the latecomers, probably 15min is still reasonable. But 1hr35min is ridiculous.

---

It is stated clearly in the post that "- The Protector at the front of your card must be TRANSPARENT."There was still a player who did not follow this and started to change it upon request at the start of a match, and it was such tiny thing that took up time from the tournament unnecessarily.

---

Quote :

Sorry about it. We will try our best not to use this format in our future tournament and stick to everyone's familiarise format - Swiss Format, Round Robin or Single Elimination.

It is not that everyone is unfamiliar with double elimination. It is about the organisers should use a format that they are familiar with and prepare for it.

Dear members,
Be sure to post a message once you have been registered. As I had just cleared 100+ member with no post in the forum. I am trying to keep the forum neat and tidy. Those users who just create an account to just come in to look and see, I am sorry but I have deleted the account. I would believe only the trading post is will be viewable to members so there should be a need for a guest to create an account to see what events we are having.

Also take note that TRADING THREADs are going to be auto prune everyday. Condition will be a post every 7 days else it will be deleted. Again its to keep neat and tidy in the forum.